| 11:20 pm on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
John, we've had members here on the board complaining about ranking poorly for their paid pages..:)
Also: talking about Yahoo we should perhaps keep in mind they run a directory which relies almost exclusively on PFI.
I agree though - daily refreshing offers opportunities to tweaking, it should give some advantages to people hwo know what the are doing.
What would you think anyhow is the number of paid pages in FAST's db?
I'd be very surprised if FAST's 2 + Bill. index holds more than 0,1% or so of PFI pages. Very probably it's rather 0,01..
Nevertheless, Littleman has lately started a thread on PFI as business model somewhere here, which I can't see to find at the moment, in which some very good points are being made. It's far from being a perfect solution in my view.
| 11:53 pm on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>What would you think anyhow is the number of paid pages in FAST's db?<<
If they hook up with Yahoo!, I'm sure the number of paid pages will increase just a little bit. ;)
I have to agree that emulating the INK business model may not be a very "swift" decision.
| 11:22 am on Jun 15, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|we've had members here on the board complaining about ranking poorly for their paid pages.. |
That's true! i have paid for pages, and they haven't even got updated!
AND I am very unsure about this but i remember hearing a figure that around 2 million pages where PFI, most of the dynamic content from large sites.
| 4:08 pm on Jun 17, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I am still going to stick by Google. It seems whenever I use FAST I end up going to Google because I'm frustated with FAST's results. Relevancy is the key, not number of indexed pages. And screw the number of pages indexed anyway! Google's PageRank algorithm has proved successful and I think that it will continue to for some time.
Teoma interests me much more than FAST.
[edited by: heini at 5:10 pm (utc) on June 17, 2002]
| 4:18 pm on Jun 17, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I have used Fast and Google equally over the past year and a half. Both of them have delivered excellent results for the search terms I have requested.
While I am happy to diversify, and a monopoly is rarely a good thing, Google has treated us well as website owners, and as a business. I would only be dissappointed if inktomi got the deal.
| 9:37 pm on Jun 17, 2002 (gmt 0)|
FAST needs to clean the garbage out of their index. Check this:
Please, no URL's or spam reporting, thanks
#1 and #2 in FAST are almost exact dupes *and* are just doorway pages from some affiliate. Google has much better results.
Having said that I think FAST has the capacity to step up to the plate and it *will* be nice to have another major player.
[edited by: NFFC at 9:56 pm (utc) on June 17, 2002]
| 9:47 pm on Jun 17, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Physics - actually it is worse than you stated. #1, 2, and 7 on Fast are affiliate mirrors.
And the only site that listed pigs was the paid banner ad on the left...
Like the man said, a lot more to being relevant than just size.
| 9:50 pm on Jun 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Here comes the bride, all dressed in...
<added> url has gone 404 </added>
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 4:22 am (utc) on June 21, 2002]
| 10:00 pm on Jun 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
well I'll be darned
| 10:04 pm on Jun 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
And ain't she pretty.
Some filter on, it's not offensive content reduction.
| 10:15 pm on Jun 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
..and looking pumped up but still very lovely
- where you get these things Brett - I don't wanna know.
| 10:19 pm on Jun 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
That could be one of a million things - who knows...
| 10:20 pm on Jun 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
May I be the first to kiss the bride :)
| 11:46 pm on Jun 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Whatever might happen, or not happen, I have got myself a few Fast shares... They are pretty low since a couple of months, for no obvious reason.
| 6:16 am on Jun 19, 2002 (gmt 0)|
ANd I will probably go and try their PFI program... Time to study Fast more closely :)
| 7:31 am on Jun 19, 2002 (gmt 0)|
yes interesting, but is there also a yahoo google and av test as well as a Fast test and we havent found it yet?
It looks very good for Fast overall but I'm not convinced this pre-marital "testing-out" is monogamous and that Fast on this evidence is a shoe-in.. Hopefully Y! is using a c****m.
| 11:04 am on Jun 19, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Is this now inaccessible?
| 11:15 am on Jun 19, 2002 (gmt 0)|
yes, looks like gone
| 1:05 pm on Jun 19, 2002 (gmt 0)|
They pulled that quickly, LOL.
| This 79 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 79 ( 1 2  ) |